Category Archives: Theory

Recently I came up with a rather simple political map I called the ‘5 point freedom scale‘ which mapped levels of freedom in society from poor (level 1) through to excellent (level 5). I then looked at the role of these competing levels had on world politics, in an article I called ‘The current world order instability’. This was a brief summary of two competing visions for a New World Order, one that would see level 3 and 4 societies retreat into level 2 dictatorships, probably based on corrupting the level 3 concern with ‘Free Market’ into a corporate ideology. The other was those forces of the currently emerging level 5 organisations, that increasing win battles against the combined might of the other four levels combined.

However, in discussing all this I came to realise that a far more important application of the 5 point model was in analysis of inter-personal relations. It also has magical application in that it has implications in the way we interact with spirits. It should also be understood that each level builds upon the previous, taming some of its unpleasant aspects, whilst also bringing in new obstacles to overcome. Maybe level 5 isn’t really the end either…

Level 1: When a relationship involves one party doing as they are told by the another party under threat of violence, or use of coercion, then this is a level 1 relationship. Examples:

Old style ceremonial magician bossing grimoire demons about with threat of violence from monotheistic god.

Worshipper religiously observing commands of a deity under threat of divine punishment.

Bully stealing sandwiches from another child in the school playground with threat of punching.

But it also appears in more subtle forms. If one party gets away with behaviour they would not themselves tolerate in others, purely because they hold a monopoly on the use of force, then they are engaging in level 1 behaviour. Examples:

A website owner making rude comments to other posters, that other posters would get banned for.

Key areas of attitude:

Power: Strength and might

Morality: Obedience

Property: Who ever can take and hold onto it

Truth: Whatever power says it is, “Might makes right”

Spirituality: Blood, nation, family, race

Level 2: A relationship is in level 2 when participants judge each other based on some ideological criteria. For example, if we mistook this 5 point map for the actual territory, and turned it into an ideology, we might start calling each other out for low level behaviour. The irony here is that kind of calling out would itself be a level 2 behaviour. In practise calling out level 1 behaviour is probably okay, because at least level 2 is a step up from that. However, level 2 relies on the use of dogma, the mistaking of words for a moral truth.

It also appears in more subtle ways. For example, when someone feels justified in rude behaviour towards another because they think the other person is ‘wrong’ according to the ideology they hold.

The key phrase for level 2 then is ‘ogma makes right’.

Key areas of attitude:

Power: The word

Morality: Dogma

Property: Defined by written law

Truth: According to sacred text

Spirituality: Book, faith, fellow believers

Level 3: A relationship is on level 3 when it is based on trade. This is the first level based on consent, although it isn’t necessarily free from coercion. The trade does not always involve money. Goods and services may be exchanged for other goods and services. Examples:

Magician or sorcerer making offerings to a spirit or god as payment for magical success.

Employee exchanging their time and effort in exchange for payment from an employer.

Sales person who is only trying to sell you something.

On a friendship level it can become a barrier to companionship when:

A friend who thinks everyone in the group should do what they want, because they’re the one with money/property.

When someone thinks they can be rude to others because they are more ‘successful’.

Someone tries to only make friends with people they think they can use to further their career, or otherwise get something out of that they want.

Level 3 doesn’t make a good basis for friendship since it tends to be based on each party looking out only for themselves, and trying to get as much out of the other as they can whilst giving as little as possible. As a result, it undermines mutual cooperation through exploitative manipulation. Cooperation only lasts whilst interests align closely, until one side feels they can betray the other, or misjudges how far they can take without upsetting the apple cart.

Key areas of attitude:

Power: Wealth. “Money makes the world go round”

Morality: Market forces.

Property: Is liberty.

Truth: What the customer says it is.

Spirituality: Profit, cash flow, banks, money, charity

Level 4: Level 4 relationships revolves around critical thinking, objective measurements, a desire for fairness, pragmatism, finding solutions, science, mathematics, statistics, game theory and models. These are powerful tools that can help us achieve pretty much whatever we want. Therefore organisation between individuals in a level 4 relationship involves negotiation, discussion and potentially compromise. If poor models are chosen, or individuals assume conflicting models, then arguments can result, which only discussion of assumptions made can resolve.

Key areas of attitude:

Power: Information

Morality: Avoidance of harm

Property: Is defined and controlled by economic models

Truth: Is what we measure

Spirituality: Humanism, humanitarianism, objectivity

Level 5:
If level 4 concerns the scientific measurable truth, what can possibly come higher than that? Only something that can give guidance to what we should be measuring. Obviously lower levels try and do that. Level 3 tries to control the direction of science by funding it. Level 2 tries to control it with morality. Level 1 takes what it can from it for weapons and espionage. But all these causes attempt to pervert the truth of science, and drag relationships back into authoritarianism. Level 5 then would be some principle that directs the choice of models we use without perverting their truth. One that leads to ways of cooperation between individuals that ensure a world free of coercion and force. I humbly propose compassion as the key. Not the first to say as much I know…

So a level 5 relationship you aren’t seeking to control someone against their will, you aren’t trying to dictate your personal morality, no matter how much you believe you are right, you aren’t thinking about how to sell something to them, or how you might exploit them for profit. Nor are you trying to measure and negotiate the relationship, although that might prove a pre-requisite. Instead you feel empathy for them. Know in yourself why they are like they are, and know how best to deal with difficult situations. Know how to express your own needs. If someone upsets you, learn how to express that with compassion, so you don’t hurt them back.

I know I need to work on some of these areas myself. I’ve neglected them far too long.

Key areas of attitude:

Power: True Will, Emergence

Morality: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. Love is the law. Love under will.

I hereby declare that from now onwards, I aim towards level 5 in my interactions with fellow KIA agents, my close family and friends especially, and in my relationships with the world in general. I will likely fall in this goal but hopefully the longer I keep at it, the more I will attain this.

I think this is a very funny article and makes me feel really sorry for the guys… I am aware that male Kia members may not associate with presented image of men but I am sure you agree that this is how “male stereotype” thinks. I can definitely associate that with couple of men I know…
http://www.cracked.com/article_19785_5-ways-modern-men-are-trained-to-hate-women.html?wa_user1=2&wa_user2=Sex&wa_user3=article&wa_user4=trending_now

We can find different sides to Green Magic but undoubtedly for many of us word ‘green’ brings associations with weed.

Here I share with you two different documentaries on Marijuana. The first one talks about the importance of medicinal marijuana whilst the second one tells the history of ganja in the US. I found both of them informative and educating and overall optimistic. I think we are really getting there with dope! Sit back and relax munching on your favorite cookies.

Another inspiring quote found on facebook. not sure who is the author of that but i think it is amazing:

As we grow up, we learn that even the one person that wasn’t supposed to ever let you down probably will. You will have your heart broken probably more than once and it’s harder every time. You’ll break hearts too, so remember how it felt when yours was broken. You’ll fight with your best friend. You’ll blame a new love for things an old one did. You’ll cry because time is passing too fast and you’ll eventually lose someone you love. So take too many pictures, laugh too much, and love like you have never been hurt because every sixty seconds you spend upset is a minute of happiness you’ll never get back.”

Whilst browsing through some posts from an old KIA forum I came across this article, originally posted in 2003, but which at the time attracted no comments.

When marriage between gays was by rite

RITE AND REASON: A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St Catherine’s monastery on Mount Sinai. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man) overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing is unusual. The “husband and wife” are in fact two men. Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual “marriage” is one sanctified by Christ? The very idea initially seems shocking.

The full answer comes from other sources about the two men featured, St Serge and St Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs. While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that “we should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in life”. More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St Serge is openly described as the “sweet companion and lover” of St Bacchus. In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they were a homosexual couple. Unusually their orientation and relationship was openly accepted by early Christian writers.

Furthermore, in an image that to some modern Christian eyes might border on blasphemy, the icon has Christ himself as their pronubus, their best man overseeing their “marriage”.

The very idea of a Christian homosexual marriage seems incredible. Yet after a 12-year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian homosexual “marriage” did exist as late as the 18th century. Contrary to myth, Christianity’s concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved both as a concept and as a ritual. Prof Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings such as blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the “Office of Same Sex Union” (10th and 11th century Greek) or the “Order for Uniting Two Men” (11th and 12th century).

These ceremonies had all the contemporary symbols of a marriage: a community gathered in church, a blessing of the couple before the altar, their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages, the participation of a priest, the taking of the Eucharist, a wedding banquet afterwards. All of which are shown in contemporary drawings of the same sex union of Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John. Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th/early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded. Boswell’s book, The Marriage of Likeness: Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe, lists in detail some same sex union ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents.

One Greek 13th century “Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union” having invoked St Serge and St Bacchus, called on God to “vouchsafe unto these thy servants [N and N] grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints.” The ceremony concludes: “And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded.” Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic “Office of Same Sex Union”, uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Boswell found records of same-sex unions in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St Petersburg, in Paris, Istanbul, and in Sinai, covering a period from the 8th to the 18th centuries. Nor is he the first to make such a discovery. The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books. While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, it was only from about the 14th century that anti-homosexual feelings swept western Europe. Yet same sex union ceremonies continued to take place.

At St John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope’s parish Church) in 1578 as many as 13 couples were “married” at Mass with the apparent co-operation of the local clergy, “taking Communion together, using the same nuptial scripture, after which they slept and ate together”, according to a contemporary report. Another woman-to-woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century. Many questionable historical claims about the church have been made by some recent writers in this newspaper. Boswell’s academic study however is so well researched and sourced as to pose fundamental questions
for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their attitude towards homosexuality. FOR the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be a cowardly cop-out. That evidence shows convincingly that what the modern church claims has been its constant unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is in fact nothing of the sort. It proves that for much of the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom from Ireland to Istanbul and in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given ability to love and commit to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honoured and blessed both in the name of, and through the Eucharist in the presence of Jesus Christ.

Jim Duffy is a writer and historian. The Marriage of Likeness: Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe by John Boswell is published by Harper Collins.

These are official messages sent from WM3, I decided to publish them here for those of you who didn’t follow the updates on their official website. If someone here is not familiar with the topic, you can read my recent post on the forum
To me their story is very inspiring as it shows that we should never loose hope and never give up. And also we should stick together!

From Jessie Misskelley Jr #wm3

Hello friends!

Let me start off by saying that I am forever grateful and appreciative
of every single one of you who has supported us now and in the past. I
call each and everyone of you my friend. I am beginning a new life for
myself and enjoying spending time with friends and loved ones. Meeting
new family has brought so much joy to my heart as seeing those I haven’t
seen in 18 years. I am taking time to relax and learning about things
that have changed. Thanks again to everyone who has welcomed us back
into society where we belong and have belonged for 18 years. This
feeling is like no other I never imagined… walking out a free man and
it’s because of all y’all that I kept the faith that one day I would get
to start and continue my life again. Thanks you all I love each and
every one of you! Have a good life, I know I sure will!

Love, Jessie
Misskelley Jr 8/23/11

Damien Echols, August 19th, 2011

To all my friends and family, my attorneys and advocates, and to those
of you from every corner of this earth who have stood beside us these
long years, please know that I will forever be indebted to all of you
for helping me to become a free man. Each and every day I was the
beneficiary of acts of kindness and humanity from people of all walks of
life, of all ages, nationalities, religions and political persuasions.
The enormity of the support Lorri and I received throughout this
struggle is humbling.

I have now spent half my life on death row. It is a torturous
environment that no human being should have to endure, and it needed to
end. I am innocent, as are Jason and Jessie, but I made this decision
because I did not want to spend another day of my life behind those
bars. I want to live and to continue to fight for our innocence.
Sometimes justice is neither pretty nor is it perfect, but it was
important to take this opportunity to be free.

I am not alone as there are tens of thousand of men and woman in this
country who have been wrongfully convicted, forced into a false
confession, sentenced to death or a lifetime in prison. I am hopeful
that one day they too will be able stand with their friends and family
to declare their innocence.

This whole experience has taught me much about life, human nature,
American justice, survival and transcendence.

I will hopefully take those lessons with me as I embark on the next
chapter in my journey and along the way look forward to enjoying some of
those simple things in life like spending Christmastime, Halloween and
my birthday with those I love.

From Jason Baldwin

Good morning, everybody! I want to say that this is the most joyous
experience: learning to live, to love, and to soar higher than any past
expectations. We live in a world where sometimes living is not about
loving. However, all of you have shown me that the parts of the world
you inhabit are about loving.

What happened to me happened without my consent. What all of you have
done, you chose to do. You chose to step in and eliminate some of the
darkness in this world. I find you all to be heroes, and I am glad to
call you all my friends.

These new days have been a blur, full of hard-won and much-deserved fun,
revelry and just getting to know one another and ourselves. I’ve
probably said this countless times these past few days, but I’ve felt
like a dandelion seed in the wind–pulled from one friend’s arms to the
next, to dance to the sweet tune of freedom. It’s a beautiful sound.

I noticed that the topic of tolerance keeps coming back during discussions on Kia, so I decided to write something about that. From my own experience I noticed that being tolerant makes my life easier as it helps me to adjust myself to different situations/people. However there is a big difference between “tolerance” forced upon us by our beliefs (for example belief that we need to be tolerant towards elderly or disabled) or “real tolerance” which comes from deeper understanding of people/ situations. If something makes you angry and you stop yourself from reacting to this because you want to be tolerant, this is not what I understand as a “real tolerance”.

In my opinion “real” tolerance is directly connected with our ability to see the given situation/ person in a wider context, seeing where their attitudes come from, what is a hidden message behind their behaviour, what has caused things to be the way they are etc. The other important factor is our own flexibility in attachment to our beliefs. The more we believe that what we are doing/thinking is in some way “better” than what other people do or think, the less tolerant we are. Same thing happens if we believe to know the “truth” about something.

From my own experience and observation of others it seems to me that our tolerance is very limited towards things which in some way destroy our image of ourselves or our vision of the World and its rules. For example if you are a very educated intelligent person, you are likely to be tolerant towards other educated intelligent people, even if their opinions are different to your own, but your tolerance may run out when you face a complete ignorant, who thinks that “education sucks”.

If you were able to see the wider picture of the situation, you would understand that this person’s beliefs come from their life experiences or they were forced upon them by their families/ surrounding environment. Why would their opinion offend you? I personally believe that it will offend you only if you are afraid that they may be right or when you believe that education is one of the human’s great virtues. By accepting the possibility that education has no value, you would have to accept the fact that all the effort you put into your studying was a waste of time, or at least you reached a dead end and now you have to turn back. Isn’t that right?

Next time someone makes you angry, ask yourself what is the real cause of you anger?

I believe that lack of tolerance is a sign of weakness. Only the things that touch your weak points will make you angry or upset.